Gulen's False Choice: Silence or Violence

The imam and his army should follow their own advice: respond to insults against Muhammad or other non-violent attacks by presenting a better example of Islam, rather than by attempting prior restraint on free expression.

When the enigmatic Turkish Islamist leader, M. Fethullah Gulen, who lives in the U.S., published, in the September 27 London Financial Times, an op-ed column with a clumsy turn from benevolent moderation to hard Islamist ambitions, he revealed his authentic character.

The topic was, probably predictably, the latest outburst of terrorism in Muslim countries, along with the pretext of indignation against a crude video made in the U.S. and which insulted Muhammad. The op-ed, entitled, "Violence is not in the tradition of the Prophet," emphasized, in the first seven (out of nine) paragraphs, that Muslims should not react to insults against Muhammad by destructive protests: "The violent response," he wrote, "was wrong… Muslims …must speak out [against] violence… The question we should ask ourselves as Muslims is whether we have introduced Islam and its Prophet properly to the world. Have we followed his example in such a way as to instill admiration?... [A Muslim] should respect the sacred values of Christians, Jews, Buddhists and others as he expects his own religion and values to be respected." So far, so good.

The true outlook of Fethullah Gulen, however, was revealed in his last two paragraphs: "Hate speech designed to incite violence is an abuse of the freedom of expression... [W]e should appeal to the relevant international institutions, such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation [OIC] or the UN, to intervene, expose and condemn instances of hate speech. We can do whatever it takes within the law to prevent any disrespect to all revered religious figure, not only to the Prophet Muhammad. The attacks on the Prophet we have repeatedly experienced are to be condemned, but the correct response is not violence. Instead, we must pursue a relentless campaign to promote respect for the sacred values of all religions," Gulen proclaimed.

Gulen proposes, in so many words, adoption of international laws against blasphemy as an alternative to homicidal outbursts. And what would a "relentless campaign" involve other than disrespect for free speech? Presenting terrorist mobs and blasphemy codes as the principal alternatives for redress of offended Muslims' grievances is hardly reasonable, and conflicts with the reputation Gulen has sought to construct for himself and his followers as dedicated adherents to interfaith dialogue and tolerance of religious differences.

Gulen leads a massive, worldwide religious, journalistic, and educational network, known as Hizmet (Service). His movement is associated with the Istanbul daily newspaper Zaman (Time), which claims to be Turkey's largest in circulation. Zaman produces an English online edition, Today's Zaman, as well as media aimed at the overseas Turkish communities in Germany and Australia. Zaman also appears in locally-edited versions in countries, from the Balkans to Kyrgyzia, which possess either Turkish minorities, or are viewed as part of a pan-Turkish cultural sphere. Zaman has no problem with restrictive press rules under notorious dictatorships, such as, for example, that of the former Soviet Muslim republic of Turkmenistan, under the eccentric, coercive, and energy-rich regime established by its post-Communist autocrat, Suparmarat Niyazov (1940-2006). Zaman Turkmenistan, following the prevailing rules, has refrained from reporting news unfavorable to Niyazov's regime and its successors.

Gulen is doubtless best known outside Turkey for a system of science-oriented primary, secondary, and higher education institutions across the globe, including many operated as "charter schools," with local public financing, in the U.S. The Gulen school system in America – 120 establishments in 2012, according to The New York Times – has been questioned for its odd characteristics. These include recruiting American students of non-Turkish descent to learn Turkish – hardly a likely first choice for American learners of a second language – and participating in competitions for the mastery of Turkish culture. Turkish-Americans, however, according to the reliable estimates, account for fewer than 150,000 people out of the total population, thereby depriving the Gulen program of an argument for multicultural representation in public school curricula of a significant minority culture.

Further, in the last two years, mainstream media have reported U.S. federal and state investigations of the Gulen charter school system. These have focused on charges of diversion of local government money to Gulen-controlled businesses and abuse of "H1B" work visas for teachers brought from Turkey and Central Asia who have substandard qualifications, while American teachers with superior credentials suffer unemployment. Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that three Gulen schools in the American state of Georgia (he has many more schools in the former Soviet republic of Georgia) had defaulted on bonds, and that an audit had disclosed improper contracting for services with Gulen enterprises.

The Gulen movement's American branches additionally offer speaking platforms and tours of Turkey to influential Americans, with considerable success. Gulen, who began his professional life as an imam, has enjoyed the support of America's premier academic apologist for radical Islam, Professor John Louis Esposito of the Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University, as well as other prominent figures. Through them, he has projected himself as a preacher of moderate, spiritual Islam related to the Sufi tradition and particularly to that of Said Nursi (1878-1960), who advocated a fusion of science and faith. Gulen has been especially identified by his defenders with mutual respect between religions and as an advocate for secular education, an opponent of terrorism, and, in effect, a lover of all humanity.

Inside Turkey, Gulen and his movement have a different image. They inspire considerable fear. Gulen's followers have been accused of an elaborate strategy of infiltration of state institutions, including the army, police, and judiciary. Ahmet Sik, a Turkish journalist who wrote an expose of the movement, The Imam's Army, was charged with participation in a nebulous "conspiracy" called "Ergenekon," organized ostensibly by a "deep state" within the Turkish institutions. Sik was released in March 2012 after more than a year in prison. The Imam's Army is banned in Turkey and has yet to be printed as a book there, although it, and excerpts translated into English, have been posted on the internet.

On his release from Silivri prison near Istanbul, the valiant Sik declared "The police, prosecutors and judges who plotted and executed this conspiracy will enter this prison. Justice will prevail when they enter here. The culprits of this affair are [certain] figures in the bureaucracy and the police connected to the [Gulen] community, and the true culprit is the government of the AKP (Justice and Development Party)." The latter is headed by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, discreetly allied with the Muslim Brotherhood, and described typically as "neo-fundamentalist." This led to a new indictment of Sik, although a hearing on it, scheduled for September 12, was postponed to December 4.

The ingenious imam may convince readers in Europe, where laws against hate speech are in force in some countries, that such sanctions are the sole alternative to brutal Islamist outbursts. Finally, the proposition has the flavor of ideological blackmail. But the imam and his army should follow their own advice: respond to insults against Muhammad or other non-violent attacks on Islam by presenting a better example of Islam, rather than by attempting prior restraint on free expression. As my colleagues and I in the Center for Islamic Pluralism have repeatedly stated: If we are firm in our religion, no insults or other negative commentaries, if not inciting violence, can harm us. Gulen has managed a two-faced campaign of outward moderation, while concealing his goal of political power, with great success. But the rest of the world is not Turkey; and Gulen, along with the OIC – headed by a Turkish academic, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, and lately committed to reviving such a scheme – cannot impose legal regulation of debate about religion on the entire planet.

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address:

Comments:

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Gatestone Institute greatly appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right, however, not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or any broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar. All thoughtful suggestions and analyses will be gratefully considered. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Gatestone regrets that, because of the increasingly great volume of traffic, we are not able to publish them all.

18 Reader Comments

Rose Garden • Oct 17, 2012 at 06:23

Those who write negative pieces about Gulen want the West to believe that we, as supporters of the volunteers movement inspired by Mr. Gulen, despise those who do not agree with us. Or they want people to believe that we are tools in the hands of other powers. These can't be farther than the truth. He is neither an agent of others, nor does he feel hatred towards those who hate him or accuse him.

These two rather ill-intentioned arguments are so far from the truth and show the ideological perspective of those who make such claims. As followers of a Sufi-Sunni philosophy of universal love and tolerance, we will not cease to love all humanity, as we love the creator of all things. We follows a philosophy that says, 'Love love, and hate hatred,' a philosophy that was followed by such Muslim scholars as Nursi, and thoroughly followed by Gulen and the volunteers of the Hizmet movement. We will continue to serve humanity through charitable works until everyone sees the good work that we do. I am a very humble member of this community, and I still feel that the accusations on Gulen are totally against his character and teachings. I hope everyone sees the truth about his philosophy.

Reply->

E. Yavuz • Oct 15, 2012 at 16:57

Mr. Fethullah Gulen is a hero who advocates peace just like Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King Jr., Pope John Paul II., etc. He embraces everybody no matter what belief, religion, and/or color of your skin you have. His whole life is dedicated to peace, dialogue, and education. How can you consider him to be such a problematic individual? I am having a very difficult time trying to understand you.

Reply->

Sahin • Oct 12, 2012 at 15:37

There are some setups going on everywhere on the earth. Some Muslims are getting annoyed and are reacting without thinking. But some people, like Mr.Gulen, are thoughtful and are not becoming players in this game. The Gulen Movement is more than described in the article. More information about Gulen Movement can be gathered from official pages such as: http://gulenmovement.ca/.

Reply->

O. Seki • Oct 10, 2012 at 18:12

I believe the efforts of truly understanding an intellectual figure who has affected the lives of millions over the years will one day be complete. We will have seen the the fruits of all his work then. Until then, we will keep making assumptions on what Gulen himself is really up to. What he frequently states is that his only aim in this world is to gain Allah's pleasure, and wishes the same for everyone else. What is more important is that he even blames/questions himself for not being able to show the true face of Islam, which is peaceful and welcoming, due to people's accusations about him.

What he would say after this article? That's what I wonder, too. But I think he would just pray asking Allah to make him and all Muslim believers a better sample to represent Islam's values in the best way they can, so that no one ever has to look for a non-existing hidden agenda beyond his words/deeds.

Reply->

Hizmet Movement • Oct 9, 2012 at 01:25

It is unfortunate and unexpected to read these lines in this website. For the uninitiated, ideas of Mr. Gulen have been scrutinized and praised by social scientists for many years. A peace advocate and an education activist, Mr. Gulen is known for his philosophical and active stance for human rights, democracy, interfaith and intercultural dialogue, science, spirituality, and against violence, segregation and turning religion into a political ideology. Mr. Gulen has published more than sixty books in Turkish, many of which have been translated to more than thirty languages. He was named as the world's Top Public Intellectual by the Foreign Policy magazine in May 2008.

The Hizmet (service) Movement (aka the Gulen Movement) he inspired is actively committed to education, dialogue, peace, social justice, and social harmony worldwide. Not only does his discourse cherish values such as empathetic acceptance, altruistic service to one's community and humanity in general, the complementary roles of mind and heart, sincerity, and love of the creation; his life exemplifes them. "Serving humanity to serve God" and "living to let others live" are the core principles of his understanding of service.

Those who are interested may find additional news pieces, academic articles, opinion-editorials, analyses and book reviews on Mr. Gulen at Hizmet Movement blog.

Reply->

Anonymous Linker Hizmet Movement • Oct 9, 2012 at 11:03

'Hizmet Movement' touts the result of their rigging of a web-vote to further their propaganda. "He was named as the world's Top Public Intellectual by the Foreign Policy magazine in May 2008" they say. Here's how, from the co-sponsor of the poll: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/howglentriumphed/

Ahmet Sik's book "Imam's Army' is freely available now in Turkey. But that's not the whole truth.

Ergenekon Prosecutor confiscated all copies of unprinted, soft copies and ordered deletion of all copies. Even copy of Ahmet Sik's attorney is deleted by orders of prosecutor. Turkish Justice system ordered destruction of the key evidence. This tells a lot about separation of power and independence and impartiality of Justice in Turkey.

Later, soft copies of the book published and distributed through internet. Moreover, a group of publishers and intellectuals published with title "000book" . Now it is freely available with original title "Imam's Army" .

I found some parts of this article false. I hope the writer is not biased. I have found this web site more objective: www.GulenMovement.us

I hope you all check websites that provide both negative and positive information on Gulen.

Reply->

Father of Sayiyya • Oct 6, 2012 at 14:39

Mr. Schwartz is very biased, twists the words of and puts unfair accusations on Mr Gulen, is full of anti-Gulen slanders put forward by extremists in Turkey and global connections of them, hides the truths about the Ahmet Sik issue, and uses the usual accusation about Infiltration issue:

"When somebody gets caught on something bad, he slanders others for doing it and directs the attention on them" The true citizen of a country doesn't infiltrate the institutions of his own country; it is his right, he just gets in there. How about the accusers/slanders? Are they the true citizens of Turkey, or are they camouflaged/hidden for centuries citizens of Turkey?

Reply->

Scott C. Alexander • Oct 6, 2012 at 02:51

I am puzzled by the fact that a man as seemingly intelligent and articulate as Mr. Schwartz appears to have deliberately misread the Op-Ed piece by Mr. Gülen. I say this because, in the very beginning of Mr. Schwartz's critique, he clearly demonstrates that he has no intention of striving for even the least degree of objectivity and fairness in his analysis of Gülen's remarks. In fact, I am saddened to say that what Mr. Schwartz attempts to offer as a trenchant critique of Gülen and the global Gönüllüler Hareketi ("Volunteers' Movement") amounts to little more than a hatchet job on a religious leader who has inspired thousands, perhaps millions, of men and women to a reawakening of their faith and a faith-based commitment to service.

How else can one explain Schwartz's absolute refusal to take Gülen at his word, despite the fact that what Gülen says in this Op-Ed piece is utterly consistent with his thought as articulated in numerous publications which span at least three decades? Why does Schwartz imply with insistence that Gülen's agenda is to enact hate speech laws in the U.S. when Gülen is explicit in the piece that "We can do whatever it takes within the law to prevent any disrespect to all revered religious figures?" Why does Schwartz assail Gülen, who seems to recognize the need to respect the legal systems of various societies in the fight against anit-religious bigotry, but not the Maronite Patriarch of Lebanon, Bechara Rai? Just one week after the pope's visit to Lebanon, Patriarch Rai boldly proclaimed: "We shall not simply accept a condemnation, but shall ask the international community to issue a United Nations resolution that will ban denigrating religions." (http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Patriarch-Rai-tells-Muslim-leaders:-no-insults-against-religions-25903.html)

Although additional evidence for my indictment of what Mr. Schwartz has written can be found throughout his text, there are a few particularly tell-tale moments. For example: in his opening paragraph, Schwartz refers to Mr. Gülen as "enigmatic." Why? What is "enigmatic" about Gülen? Not unlike Pope Benedict XVI (albeit on a somewhat smaller scale), Gülen is a global religious leader who has a website which makes his writings and speeches accessible to the widest possible audience (www.fethullahgulen.org). The former have been translated into over 30 languages and the latter are available (in Turkish) on a weekly basis, if not more frequently. True, Gülen lives a reclusive life, making few public appearances. But this is no different than many highly regarded but deeply humble religious figures who shun the public spotlight.

In this regard, allow me to return to the papal analogy. Before Pope John Paul II set the novel precedent of papal "pilgrimages" to nearly every continent (and the consequent numerous public appearances beamed around the world), most of his predecessors could well be described as "reclusive." The faithful could get a glimpse of the pope if they made a pilgrimage to Rome. But even after traveling long distances to Holy See, the best these pilgrims could ever do was to spy the pope from afar as he stood on the iconic balcony of St. Peter's Basilica, or from a considerable distance at a grand liturgical ceremony. And even in this age of comparatively frequent papal travel and satellite TV, popes like John Paul II and Benedict XVI were/are not exactly "out there" in the way that Mr. Schwartz is rather disingenuously implying Mr. Gülen ought to be. Despite the spotlight which Pope Benedict seems to occupy so regularly, he still does not give interviews to the media, and only meets personally with high-level and highly select individuals and groups. In fact, were it not for the fact that the Bishop of Rome is also a head of state--a position which Mr. Gülen decidedly does not hold--one might well maintain that such papal meetings and travels would be substantially fewer than they currently are.

Which raises the question as to whether or not Mr. Schwartz would describe the popes as "enigmatic," rather than simply "reclusive." Beyond this, as a Roman Catholic, I wonder whether Mr. Schwartz would describe Benedict XVI in the distinctively negative context in which he portrays Gülen? Would he dub the pope as "an ingenious priest" who controls an "army" of followers? This is certainly the way popes were described by people like Thomas Whitney, Congressman from the Fifth District of New York and one of the founders of the infamous anti-immigrant, and especially anti-Catholic, "Know-Nothing Party." Whitney is the author of a classic mid-19th-century nativist tractate entitled, A Defence of the American Policy, as Opposed to the Encroachments of Foreign Influence, and Especially to the Interference of the Papacy in the Political Interests and Affairs of the United States (New York: DeWitt and Davenport, 1856). In this text, Whitney uses almost exactly the same rhetorical tropes as does Schwartz. Whitney speaks of "the course of Jesuitism" as a "subtle and insidious" force of the papacy, designed to further the designs of "Romanism" in the U.S. which, according to Whitney, is nothing less than the "despotic" and quasi-militaristic conquest of the American Republic (pp. 79-82).

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I'm guessing that Mr. Schwartz would not describe Pope Benedict in the same terms as he casts Mr. Gülen. When I wonder why this is, I am led to the strong suspicion that Mr. Schwartz's problem with Gülen is not that the latter is a reclusive religious leader who is the inspiration behind a large group of faithful who see themselves as having a global mission. I strongly suspect that Mr. Schwartz's problem with Mr. Gülen is that Gülen is a Muslim.

This may seem ironic, given the fact that Mr. Schwartz is himself a Muslim. Upon closer examination, however, the irony begins to fade. This is for many reasons. One is that some of the fiercest condemnations of religious figures and movements tends to come at the hands of co-religionaries who are at significant odds with one another. And this certainly applies to Schwartz vis a vis a great many of his fellow U.S. American Muslims. The mission statement of Schwartz's "think tank," the Center for Islamic Pluralism, says that the purpose of the center is to challenge "the dominance of American Muslim life by militant Islamist groups." Here Schwartz is taking to an even higher level the incendiary, highly subjective, and completely unsubstantiated claim made by Shaykh Hisham Kabbani at a 1999 State Department forum that 80% of the mosques in the U.S. are "being run by the extremist ideology, but not acting as a militant movement." It is, therefore, not surprising that someone who actively chose to attack the mainstream organized Muslim community in the U.S. has an ax to grind.

What is truly ironic about Schwartz's ardent opposition to Gülen and the Volunteers' Movement, however, is that Schwartz has made a name for himself as a strong proponent of Sufi spirituality and an equally strong opponent of certain extremist forms of Wahhabi-inspired Salafism--and so has Gülen. Although I am not a Muslim, I share Mr. Schwartz's and Mr. Gülen's concerns that a certain strain of so-called "Salafis" have entered, however unwillingly, into an unholy alliance with the most virulent Islamophobes. It seems as if these self-appointed champions of Islam are completely unaware of the irony that it is they who pose what amounts to one of the greatest threats to the faith they profess: namely, that Islam potentially be reduced from a dynamic tradition of belief and practice replete with guidance for humanity, to little more than a potent, yet spiritually bankrupt, anti-Western ideology.

Why, then, attack Gülen and attempt to portray him as an extremist when one of the cornerstones of Gülen's Sufi-inspired approach is his teachings about the principle of hoşgörü (i.e, seeing the good in others) and dialogue? Why not expose the work of extremist Salafis such as Khalid 'Abdallah' and Muhammad al-Zughbi who--by translating clips into Arabic and using mass media to widely disseminate these clips--apparently played key roles in instigating the violent protests in outrage over The Innocence of Muslims?

Reply->

Eksi B. Sixdouze Scott C. Alexander • Oct 9, 2012 at 16:50

Let me first point out that I have no intention to touch upon the personal beef Scott C. Alexander seems to have with Schwartz. Similarly the papal analogies mentioned by Alexander are of no interest to me. My sole intention is to tear down his shameless apologetics regarding Gülen by presenting some solid facts about this deceptive and unsophisticated, rather than "enigmatic," imam.

"How… can one explain Schwartz's absolute refusal to take Gülen at his word…" Alexander asks, apparently without realizing that he is about to give a hint of the answer to his own question straight away: "…despite the fact that what Gülen says in this Op-Ed piece is utterly consistent with his thought as articulated in numerous publications which span at least three decades?"

There is the problem for you right there. The last thing one could say about Gülen would be that he has been "consistent" in his "thought[s]" and "publications." Alexander insults the intelligence of those who did not start following this imam just yesterday. Contrary to the tolerant Sufi image that he tries to uphold these days, until the end of the 1990s Gülen's statements, sermons, and publications were full of intolerant passages and hate speech towards anyone whom he considered (and still considers) to be the enemy of Islam. I will call this period the "pre-transformational period."

Take this sermon,[1] allegedly dating from 1979. Gülen is heard chastising his flock intensely for not doing anything about the fact that infidels ("gâvur" in Turkish) are in control of all of the holy places of Islam. He cries out among others: "Muslims should become bombs and explode, tear to pieces the heads of the infidels! Even if it's America opposing them." ("Mü'min, karsisinda Amerika dahi olsa, bomba olup patlamali, basini dagitmali gâvurun!") and continues cursing the daylights out of those who remain indifferent about this cause.

Or take this other sermon.[2] He says: "Till this day Missionaries and the Vatican have been behind all atrocities. The Vatican is the hole of the snake, the hole of the cobra. The Vatican is behind the bloodshed in Bosnia. The Vatican is behind the bloodshed in Kashmir. They have lobby groups in America and Germany." ("Bu güne kadar dünyanin dört bir yaninda bütün vahset tablolarinin arkasinda maalesef (?) vardir, misyoner teskilatı vardir, Vatikan vardir. Çiyan yuvasi, kobra yuvasi. Saraybosna'da akan kanin arkasinda Vatikan vardir. Keşmir'de akan kanlarin arkasinda Vatikan vardir. Amerika'da onlarin lobileri vardir, Almanya'da lobileri vardir.")

Or take his writings in such books as Fasildan Fasila and Asrin Getirdigi Tereddutler, both written in Q&A-style with Gülen providing answers to questions about topics concerning Islam (ergo concerning anything you can imagine). But please make sure you get hold of the unrevised, pre-transformational editions so that you get to see the 'true' Gülen. This 'true' Gülen calls the Western world the "continuous enemy of Islam." He writes: "First it were the Europeans with their crusader's mentality who invaded us, occupied us, colonized us. Then, since World War I, the Americans and Russians have taken over this role. There is no difference between the mentality of today's westerner and that of King Richard I who drank the blood of Muslims. We cannot expect any humane treatment by them until the end of days."

Of Christians he writes: "After a while they perverted and obscured their own future." According to him, Jews have a "genetic animosity towards any religion" and they have used "their guile and skills to breed bad blood" to threaten Islam since the beginning until this day, "uniting themselves with Sassanids, Romans and crusaders." He continues: "The Church, the Synagogue and Paganism form the troika that has attacked Islam persistently." Jews have always been an "abscess" and that is why, among others, the deportation of Jews from the Arabian peninsula by the second Caliph Umar was justified. "In any case," he writes, "the Prophet considers Islam as one nation and the Kuffar as the other nation."

All of the citations above are taken from the books mentioned earlier, namely Fasildan Fasila and Asrin Getirdigi Tereddutler. Again, it is extremely important that you look up the unrevised, pre-transformational editions of these books. I can provide anyone who is interested with scans of some relevant pages of editions dating from the 1990s of Asrin Getirdigi Tereddutler.

"All fine and well, but every man has the right to change his mind!" you might respond. Very true. For example, aren't there enough people who at some point in their lives decided to replace their youthful socialist views for an intensely capitalistic lifestyle? Unfortunately this type of reasoning is not valid in Gülen's case. The records show that this is a man who had spent 50 years of his life targeting, demonizing, vilifying everything and everyone associated with a non-Islamic worldview. All of a sudden, towards the end of the 1990s, he decides to change tactics, forming a pact with the Vatican and other tablemates of the deceitful, opportunistic Interfaith Dialogue platform and he even flees to the United States, ensconcing himself at the heart of what he once considered as the Devil's headquarters. From that moment on he can no longer afford to present himself as the big bad anti-Western imam. Instead, he presents himself as the big appeaser, as an antithesis of Islamic terrorism – at least, that is what he and his companions from the CIA and Interfaith Dialogue wants the Western public to believe. In fact, he hasn't changed a bit – again, he has only changed tactics. The Turkish community still knows him as the archconservative imam with extremist views about women ("The wife is supposed to deal with household affairs and undomestic affairs should be left to the man;" "Those who try to change the roles of men and women, feminists, are cursed by Allah;" "Why should Islam get in the way of corporal punishment if it can be used to discipline a woman?" – quotes from Asrin Getirdigi Tereddutler) , atheists ("Murderers are equal to atheists" - in an interview with Zaman newspaper, 03.23.2004), apostates ("Under Islamic law, apostasy is regarded with the same gravity as treason is regarded by most states and all armed forces. The hope must be to prevent, by pleading, prayers, persuasion, and all other legitimate means, such a crime from becoming public and offensive to society. Those who insist on pursuing this path must be asked to reconsider and repent. If they reject this opportunity, the penalty is death." - source [3]) and leftists (but let me not get into that).

I strongly believe that he has not changed his views on Jews, Christians and "pagans" either. Firstly, he has never apologized for his "old" views or even slightly reminisced about them. On the contrary, he and his followers act as if he never said or wrote all that stuff – not to mention the fact that his followers have been busy revising his pre-transformational writings, adapting them to his new tactics of deceitful tolerance.

Secondly, as seen above, his deceitful tolerance only extends to individuals and institutions that take part in the equally deceitful Interfaith Dialogue. He still makes no bones about demonizing feminists, leftists, atheists, and apostates but turning a blind eye to the atrocities of Western imperialism (his deafening silence on the Iraq War comes to mind) and Israeli aggression (his reaction on the Gaza Flotilla Raid comes to mind) is no longer a problem for him.

Last but not least, my believe that he has not changed a bit is based on his infamous pre-transformational sermons where he warns his flock not to engage in premature actions. He says: "You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers… until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads.… The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it.… The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all—in confidence… trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here—[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here."

These statements are not fabricated, they are not the products of a 'Kemalist' or 'Ergenekon' conspiracy as Gülenists would like you to believe. These statements are real, they are recorded on tape and must not be put aside just like that. They shed light on the true character of Gülen and his flock. These are the statements of a man who writes: "In the world of tomorrow Islam will be the one and only dominating force." (Asrin Gettirdigi Tereddutler & Fasildan Fasila) "An innocent desire of an ideologue," you might think, but I hope that by now I have been able to persuade the reader of the fact that Gülen's utopian world of tomorrow will not be a quite friendly place for anyone who disagrees with him.

Now, this should be a sufficient answer to Alexander's question of how one can refuse to take Gülen at his word. I would also like to spend a few words on the alleged "humbleness" of Gülen. Alexander writes: "True, Gülen lives a reclusive life, making few public appearances. But this is no different than many highly regarded but deeply humble religious figures who shun the public spotlight."

I don't know and I don't care about other religious figures but what I do know is that Gülen's refusal to go public does not stem from his humbleness – which is nonexistent. In his biography Kucuk Dunyam ('My Small World', where he is being interviewed by one of his closest disciples) he talks about himself as if he is some sort of prophet or anything that comes close to that rank. In his application for an American Green Card he tries to convince the court that he is an "alien of extraordinary ability," that he "has developed an educational methodology that is used in the hundreds of Gülen schools[!] throughout the world", that he is "an educator of educators" and he talks about the "Gülen Movement" (in contrast to the interview he gave to USA Today, where he refuses to accept the existence of a movement carrying his name, source [4]) and so forth.

His public statements on every single issue, small or big, that is on the agenda back in Turkey constantly occupy the headlines of the intimidated Turkish media as if he is some sort of omnipresent herdsman.

No, sir, "humble" is not the right word either when it comes to describing Gülen's character. So what is it then that keeps this guy away from the spotlights (with the exception of some rare, unthreatening interviews he gives once in a while)? The answer is not hard to find: his lack of intellectual depth. Gülen is an old-fashioned imam and as such he is not used to hearing nor engaging in a debate with dissenting opinions. Can you imagine him in a debate with someone like Noam Chomsky or Eric Hobsbawm defending the bloodguilty Turkish "Associations for Fighting Communism," of which he was a cofounder, and his demonizing statements about leftists? Can you imagine him in a debate with someone like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett defending his childish takes on evolution theory or metaphysics? Can you imagine him in a debate with Salman Rushdie defending his views on apostasy? And so forth and so forth... Gülen only gives sermons; he is a man of monologues and he does not like to be held to account for his views. On this point (actually, not only on this point) he definitely resembles the Pope, but I won't make it a secret that I'm not a big fan of the Pope either.

So, Gülen is neither consistent (at least not regarding his appearance), tolerant, nor humble. Don't let anyone, especially the opportunists of the deceitful Interfaith Dialogue, make you believe otherwise. Back to you, Scott.

This is a classic example of Gulen-bashing. We are told that the author has access to 'unrevised editions;' so far so good. But are 'unrevised editions' enough to bash the author, when he has all the right to edit his own work in the final version? It is highly susceptible that the commentator distorted the meaning of the words in his own English translations of Gulen's wording.

Furthermore, the accusations and distortion reaches a new height in his ridiculous claim that Gulen is 'faking it' when he says he is humble! Our commentator apparently has the ability to read people's minds. But that's not all: the phrases he claims that Gulen uses about himself (educator of educators etc.) are not uttered by himself but by a supporter of his work. Nowhere can you find Gulen referring to himself as 'near to a prophet.' From the very beginning he refers to himself as a simple human being.

A common tactic among those strategically trying to defame Gulen, the commentator contradicts himself by first saying that Gulen had been consistently bashing the West, Christians and "pagans" (the commentator's own wording), and then only a few paragraphs later he claims that Gulen is supported by the CIA! So, this CIA supporting Gulen did not know about his speeches claimed to be full of intolerance towards the West and Christianity? This lie that Gulen is supported by the Western powers or the CIA, while he is also presented as intolerant of the West and other religions in his 'real self,' is shared by Gulen-bashers in Turkey. While in Turkey these 'critics' scare the Turkish public by claiming that Gulen is supported by the West, abroad these same people accuse Gulen for being really an 'intolerant' and dangerous agent of Islam.

These contradictions show the real intentions of such articles and comments, the real intention of which is to defame Gulen and obstruct his work towards world peace.

Reply->

Eksi B. Sixdouze Semih E. • Oct 12, 2012 at 11:47

Isn't it funny how Semih E. ignores the two videos I referred to in my previous comment and directly moves on to the quotes I took from Gülen's books? What's the matter Semih, couldn't find a way to cover up the videos? I dare you to deny them too. Or maybe I mistranslated the sermons? Maybe Gülen is just talking about the birds and the bees instead of blowing up heads there, right?

Anyway, Semih E. is about to get disappointed again because I have uploaded the scans of some passages from the books I mentioned earlier to the web for all to see (further below). Let people decide for themselves.

Semih E. writes:

This is a classic example of Gulen-bashing. We are told that the author has access to 'unrevised editions;' so far so good.

You make it sound like these books are some sort of inaccessible treasures. I just borrowed them from the local library, and I do also happen to have a friend with a bookshelf full of these editions.

Semih E. writes:

But are 'unrevised editions' enough to bash the author, when he has all the right to edit his own work in the final version?

I am not talking about 'drafts' or 'manuscripts' – I am talking about 'final versions' of these books and I am simply warning the reader to get their hands on the early editions. Editions of these books published after the 1990s have been revised. That is my point. So I am not bashing the author for editing his drafts or manuscripts – I am bashing the author and his followers for trying to cover up history as if all those texts (final versions!) full of intolerant passages and hate speech were never written or spoken.

Semih E. writes:

It is highly susceptible that the commentator distorted the meaning of the words in his own English translations of Gulen's wording.

Let me go step by step by providing some selected context (taken from these scans) for each of the quotes I used in my previous comment. This is unfortunately going to be in Turkish (in cursive) of course but I am sure that those who are interested can find a Turkish translator to help them out. Purpose of this copy-pasting is just the backing of my claims and to provoke an honest reaction from either Semih E. or Scott C. Alexander.

I wrote:

1.) This 'true' Gülen calls the Western world the "continuous enemy of Islam." He writes: "First it were the Europeans with their crusader's mentality who invaded us, occupied us, colonized us. Then, since World War I, the Americans and Russians have taken over this role. There is no difference between the mentality of today's westerner and that of King Richard I who drank the blood of Muslims. We cannot expect any humane treatment by them until the end of days."

3.) According to him, Jews have a "genetic animosity towards any religion" and they have used "their guile and skills to breed bad blood" to threaten Islam since the beginning until this day, "uniting themselves with Sassanids, Romans and crusaders." He continues: "The Church, the Synagogue and Paganism form the troika that has attacked Islam persistently."

As I wrote above, this is just a selection of Gülen's hate speech in order to back up the quotes that I used before and, of course, to embarrass Semih E. who writes that I made these things up. I think this should suffice. Now let me return to Semih E.'s other claims:

A common tactic among those strategically trying to defame Gulen, the commentator contradicts himself by first saying that Gulen had been consistently bashing the West, Christians and "pagans" (the commentator's own wording), and then only a few paragraphs later he claims that Gulen is supported by the CIA! So, this CIA supporting Gulen did not know about his speeches claimed to be full of intolerance towards the West and Christianity?

There is no contradiction. True, I did write that Gülen had been consistently bashing the West but I also wrote that at a certain point Gülen decided to change tactics after which no more bashing of the West has occurred.

First of all, I don't believe the CIA is a monolith. It has an estimated number of 20,000 employees, and I don't think they all have the same ideas about strategy every time, everywhere. Secondly, it is no secret that the CIA more than once cooperated with fractions perceived to be anti-West. 'Taliban' anyone? The name Hekmetyar ringing a bell? Thirdly, a passage from Ronald Kessler's book The CIA at War might shed some light on this issue:

The CIA was free to put Islamic academics and journalists, as well as mullahs, on the payroll to convey a more moderate message and even to support the U.S. in the war on terror, and it did so. In Islam, as in many other religions, anyone can call himself a religious leader. So, besides paying mullahs, the CIA created fake mullahs-recruited agents who would proclaim themselves clerics and take a more moderate position about nonbelievers. Their statements were not inconsistent with the teachings of the Koran, which, like the Bible, was a largely benign document. (…) "We are taking over radio stations and supporting clerics," a CIA source said. "it's back to propaganda. We are creating moderate muslims."Ronald Kessler, The CIA at War, New York: St. Martin's Press 2003, p. 276.

Semih E. writes:

This lie that Gulen is supported by the Western powers or the CIA, while he is also presented as intolerant of the West and other religions in his 'real self,' is shared by Gulen-bashers in Turkey. While in Turkey these 'critics' scare the Turkish public by claiming that Gulen is supported by the West, abroad these same people accuse Gulen for being really an 'intolerant' and dangerous agent of Islam.

George Fidas, Graham Fuller, Morton Abramowitz on behalf of the CIA and USA, Thomas Michel on behalf of the Vatican: am I making these names up as well?

And please do not put words in my mouth. The content of my criticism of Gülen never differs: it is the same in Turkey as well as in the West. I am not here to defend the West by the way – I am here to confront people mislead by Scott C. Alexander with Gülen's real face and to condemn those who opportunistically have supported them so that his movement could become the most powerful player in Turkish politics and society, making life miserable for everyone who disagrees with him. So I am not warning the CIA or the Vatican to "Watch out!" (I couldn't care less about them) – I am merely trying to make a humble contribution to the efforts of undermining the powerful, despotic position currently held by the Gülen movement.

Semih E. writes:

Furthermore, the accusations and distortion reaches a new height in his ridiculous claim that Gulen is 'faking it' when he says he is humble! Our commentator apparently has the ability to read people's minds. But that's not all: the phrases he claims that Gulen uses about himself (educator of educators etc.) are not uttered by himself but by a supporter of his work. Nowhere can you find Gulen referring to himself as 'near to a prophet.' From the very beginning he refers to himself as a simple human being.

I am not reading minds. I base my claims on facts. The phrases used in the application for an American Green Card bear Gülen's signature. It was his court case, not of one of his supporters. Furthermore, I didn't say that Gülen literally refers to himself as 'near to a prophet.' I said that in his biography Kucuk Dunyam he talks about himself in such a way that no choice is left for the reader to think otherwise. For instance, he says that, just a month after learning to read at the age of four, he already had memorized the whole Quran by heart. He implies that both branches of his lineage are 'sayyid.' He tells about his grandfather's village that once was visited by Caliph Ali who nailed a stake in the village ground so that the village would be protected against earthquakes. These are not the words of a humble person, sir. And please do not forget his omnipresence concerning every single political or social issue that is on the Turkish agenda.

Gülen working towards world peace? Yes, I have no doubt he is. But unfortunately I do not have a high opinion of his interpretation of peace, because I am afraid that there is no place for people like me in there. Call it 'self-preservation' if you like.

Reply->

Curmudgeon • Oct 5, 2012 at 13:25

Maybe someone will explain why an anti-American monster is allowed to live in the US. I am sure he would be much more comfortable in Turkey, or maybe Somalia, and we should help him get there and stay there. It would be cruel to force the poor man to continue to live in America, with all its evil "Islamophobia," when we could deport him to some Islamic snake pit where he can live blissfully ever after.

Reply->

Issa Kirarira • Oct 5, 2012 at 10:43

On Gulen and his movement having a different image in Turkey and inspiring considerable fear, thus having been accused of an elaborate strategy of infiltration of state institutions, including the army, police, and judiciary: this is good for Turkey if it is true, since his admirers are a model of amity, uprightness, and compassion among others. It is those attributes that will help Turkey and the universe to create an atmosphere that will make the world a better place for God's creations to live happily under diversity.

I have failed to understand Stephen Schwartz's article, which is trying to piece the virtuous intentions of Fethullah Gulen towards humanity. When you try to analyze Schwartz's intentions, you recognize heartlessness, sadism, jealousy, and provocation. For how long will citizens of the world learn to appreciate the contributions of world great scholars who are advocating for the great good of humanity? Let Schwartz be honest and unprejudiced for the good of his readers, without trying to wage good people against others.

Gulen's message of patience, love, and tolerance will lead all of us to live happily together.

Reply->

Turkish American Issa Kirarira • Oct 5, 2012 at 17:14

As Issa states, Gulen's vision of the world is one where his followers will control commerce in the coming "Golden Generation" that Gulen hopes to create via his worldwide network of schools. His $26 billion empire is growing everyday at the expense of the Brotherhood of Islam. After a country is toppled, such as Iraq, the Gulenist-led businesses (TUSKON) are gaining the contracts to rebuild the country as the lap dog of the American government. In Iraq there is over $11.9 billion in contracts won by the Gulen-led Turkish Contractors and over 109 projects including schools (surprise, surprise), hospitals, banks, etc.

The Gulen Movement has nothing to do with religion other than using it as a fake front for business and growing share of wealth. It is an economic, political, and social movement that aims to dominate everyone everywhere. The businesses and non-profits layered around each school make for great marketing, public relations, and money laundering schemes. They know how to wine and dine local members of media, religious groups, and politics.

Mr. Schwartz seems to have engaged a relentless campaign to discredit Gulen and the movement inspired by him. He twists Gulen's words to show him as anti-free speech. Gulen clearly asks for a "relentless campaign to promote respect for the sacred values of all religions." Instead of applauding Gulen on this, Stephen Schwartz accuses him with being against free speech.

His very weak and incoherent criticism of Gulen's op-ed is followed by a summary of claims by anti-Gulen groups, which is surely intended to "scare" people about Gulen. His summary of incidents in Turkey are completely a repetition of arguments and speculations put forward by anti-Gulen circles. These circles in Turkey include hardcore Kemalists (extreme secularists that invented the headscarf ban in universities), ultra-nationalists, anti-American groups, and Marxist-Leninist camps. His claim about Sik's book being banned in Turkey is a telling example how Schwartz does copy-paste everything from these groups without any research. Sik's book sold thousands of copies in bookstores in Turkey and is still available. There was never a ban on the book itself; the police collected different manuscripts to compare (Sik's book was a collective effort) and the manuscript was up on the internet a few days after the police confiscated the manuscript.

Our Sufi brother Schwartz doesn't seem to mind where he falls into when going against people who are more popular than he is. Even his aggressive anti-Wahhabi standing is not helpful to differentiate between radicals/Wahhabis and people like Gulen. I guess it is a matter of jealosy that makes Stephen Schwartz envy Gulen for his pluralist and pro-dialogue views that found stronger acceptance than Schwartz's.

Reply->

Luke Montgomery • Oct 5, 2012 at 07:48

Gülen hails from a part of the world where freedom is a word but not a properly defined concept. He has a long way to go if he is going to be a Sufi like Mevlana. Nice article.

Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani physician who helped the U.S. locate Osama bin Laden, has been in jail in Pakistan since he was arrested days after the raid on bin Laden's compound in 2011. In 2013, he was granted a retrial, with a new charge that appears politically motivated: charged with murder in regard to the death, eight years earlier, of a patient he had treated. Afridi has gone on a hunger strike protest his unspeakable prison conditions -- including torture. His former lawyer, Samiullah Khan Afridi, was murdered by the Taliban in March 2015. The Obama Administration appears to have abandoned him.